ArticlePloS one2014
Why do forward maskers affect auditory intensity discrimination? Evidence from "molecular psychophysics".
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lack of Temporal Impairment in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2019Article
- Object-based attention modulates the discrimination of level increments in stop-consonant noise bursts.PloS one · 2018Article
- Individual differences in selective attention predict speech identification at a cocktail party.eLife · 2016Article
- Exploring the source of the mid-level hump for intensity discrimination in quiet and the effects of noise.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015Article
- Is Recognition of Speech in Noise Related to Memory Disruption Caused by Irrelevant Sound?Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nonsimultaneous maskers can strongly impair performance in an auditory intensity discrimination task. Using methods of molecular psychophysics, we quantified the extent to which (1) a masker-induced impairment of the representation of target intensity (i.e., increase in internal noise) and (2) a systematic influence of the masker intensities on the decision variable contribute to these effects. In a two-interval intensity discrimination procedure, targets were presented in quiet, and combined with forward maskers. The lateralization of the maskers relative to the targets was varied via the interaural time difference. Intensity difference limens (DLs) were strongly elevated under forward masking but less with contralateral than with ipsilateral maskers. For most listeners and conditions, perceptual weights measuring the relation between the target and masker levels and the response in the intensity discrimination task were positive and significant. Higher perceptual weights assigned to the maskers corresponded to stronger elevations of the intensity DL. The maskers caused only a weak increase in internal noise, unrelated to target level and masker lateralization. The results indicate that the effects of forward masking on intensity discrimination are determined by an inclusion of the masker intensities in the decision variable, compatible with the hypothesis that the impairment in performance is to a large part caused by difficulties in directing selective attention to the targets. The effects of masker lateralization are evidence for top-down influences, and the observed positive signs of the masker weights suggest that the relevant mechanisms are located at higher processing stages rather than in the auditory periphery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.